Readers Write In #83: Would Puthiya Paathai really be a minefield today?

(by Madan Mohan, recreational tennis hack in the early morning, chartered accountant by day and wannabe writer by night.)

In his interview with our BR saar, filmmaker and actor R Parthiepan mentioned that he did not think a Puthiya Paathai could be made today and it was owing to the innocence/ignorance of the times that it was accepted then. I was piqued by this statement and took full advantage of my long commute to work and back to watch the film on the device in the approved fashion of the times.

So, first of all, let’s examine why he suggests it would be a minefield today. The answer, at a very simplistic level, lies in the premise or the conceit, if you will. A ruffian rapes a woman for money and she decides to reform him and marry him. There, there, I should really have included trigger warnings but I presumed the title Puthiya Paathai itself would be a trigger warning. However, this was not by itself a premise that would have been easily accepted even back then. The misogyny of Tamil cinema (or Bollywood for that matter) has usually been of the ‘benevolent’ manner. Of somebody suggesting pengal should be adavadakam in the name of spreading a socially responsible message. Telling the woman what to wear and what not, what to say and what she should not speak, when not to venture out and so on. So what made the conceit of Puthiya Paathai work?

The answer also lies in something Parthiepan said in the interview. That it lies in how the tale is told. This is where Puthiya Paathai also distinguished and indeed distinguishes itself. Parthiepan makes the effort to account for circumstances as best as he can. So, now, consider this. The similarity between Puthiya Paathai and modern misogynist films of Tamil cinema is unkempt dark skinned boy and rich, fair skinned girl. And that’s where the similarity ends. Seetha, playing a character bearing her own name, is no empty headed loosu ponnu. Rather, she has a tragic if somewhat cliche backstory. She lost her mother many moons ago and her father has married and divorced over and over until she is disgusted with him. All her wealth cannot give her happiness or peace of mind.

Her first encounter with Parthiepan is brutal. As a ruffian, he is contracted to rape her in order to ruin her wedding scheduled for the day after. He is completely unapologetic about the deed. There is no excuse made by the film on his behalf to glorify the act. It is depicted as vile and unscrupulous to the core, which is exactly what it is. In a somewhat unrealistic turn of events, her fiancee actually believes her when she says she has never met the person who raped her and insists they ought to still carry on with the wedding, overruling his parents’ threats to disown him if he does so. It is she who pleads that she would not be able to bear the lifelong guilt arising out of such a marriage and wants out. At this juncture, she decides that she would, in her words, rather be a good wife to the bad man who raped her than be a bad wife (burden) to a good man. Again, the character played by Manorama also tries to counsel her against this as she is well aware of the violent ways of this mercenary slumlord. It is by evoking Manorama’s own unhappy tryst with marriage that Seetha convinces her that she is right to try this. That is, the film recognises that her choice is unconventional and controversial and makes an effort to account for this. Now, we may or may not agree with her reasoning but the film at least attempts to make it plausible that a particular character, a particularly remarkable woman has undertaken this endeavour.

More importantly, it is she who pursues this ruffian who thwarts her efforts again and again. It is not he who lusts for her fair skin. It is she who attempts to soften the heart of this otherwise cruel creature who is barely thought of as human by the neighbourhood. Agency. The choices Seetha makes may come across as unrealistic but those are her choices as an independent adult. She is not bowled over by a ‘lover’ who relentlessly stalks her nor swayed or enchanted by masculine charm. She is simply placed in extraordinary circumstances which push her to make extraordinary decisions.

With time and through many acts of kindness that initially stupefy him and eventually warm his heart, she wins him over and marries him. She also persuades him, gradually, to behave better with the people around him and especially with her, to make love to her and to give up his career as a successful criminal and take up hard labour instead. He is deeply grateful to her for giving him dignity and for helping him earn the respect of others which he had never had all his life. In a dramatic scene, he falls to her feet as if seeking her blessings. Once again, the conceit may be fundamentally unrealistic and very filmi but it is also deeply respectful towards the power of the character essayed by Seetha to reform a person once thought of as the devil incarnate.

Very importantly, at no point does the film indulge in giving out morality lessons in the way Tamil films often do. Seetha’s example is not held up as something other women ought to follow. Parthiepan seems to have been aware that doing so would have been construed as placing the burden of reforming rapists on women as the victims. It transcends broad identity considerations by building strong characters so that we identify with these individuals and buy into their story as opposed to extrapolating their behaviour on men and women in general. At its heart is a very positive message (though, again, there is no annoying voice over or monologue to spell it out to us) – that redemption is always possible, no matter how much beyond redemption a person may appear to be. By delivering this message through masterful orchestration of conflict, Parthiepan makes it all the more poignant.

Rather than identity, though, there is an undercurrent of class conflict throughout the film. And in this sense, it is arguably a cousin of Aboorva Sagotharargal (which was also released the same year). In AS, Appu is a humble lilliputian of the underclass who turns to rebellion when he learns of his backstory. Here, the backstory has turned Parthiepan into a rebel who then mends his ways at the prodding of Seetha. On doing so, he runs into the issues that others of his class (who are not ruffians) do and has to watch helplessly as a bomb explosion takes his wife’s life. He memorably pulls out of killing the villain (played by Nassar) when he remembers that doing so would render their child an orphan, just the way he was. By nevertheless killing off Nassar in a road accident, the film attempts to make the import of its climax more palatable and offers karmic retribution as a balm.

Having watched it, I do not know that the film is particularly flagrant or insensitive so as to ‘disqualify’ it as a proposition in today’s times. What I saw was a film that worked hard, uncommonly so for 80s non-art cinema, to make its rather unusual story sound plausible.

It is possible that the very premise may evoke such outrage that the director would baulk at making such a film and decide he would rather not bother. And perhaps that is why Parthiepan feels it would not be possible to make such a film today. But there is one more reason why a Puthiya Paathai may not be made today and that has to do with a much more fundamental change in our cinema. That is that films about the forgotten people (to loan a phrase used by Donald Trump!) are few and far between today. The people represented in Puthiya Paathai still have poignant tales to tell. But there’s nobody to tell them on the big screen anymore.

I agree with BR , this is a terrific piece. Probably an extrapolation of your post on the other board. I know Arjun Reddy is not mentioned here, but I think it will be a while before this blog is exorcised of the ghosts of that film. In my opinion Benam Badshah is more problematic and regressive than AR (purity of woman etc.) , but it is more honest as well. Anil Kapoor’s character is a rapist. But Arjun Reddy , despite being a violent sexual predator is a “troubled genius”.

Anyway coming back to BB , what is this logic – good wife to bad guy vs bad wife to good guy.

I also am not sure what to make of this line –
“It transcends broad identity considerations by building strong characters so that we identify with these individuals and buy into their story as opposed to extrapolating their behaviour on men and women in general”

I think it is unfair to your article, but I am talking about the Hindi version since I have not seen the original, Anil Kapoor was probably a big star at the time of release of this movie. It is hard to imagine that he would have been seen as a character and not as an archetype / hero. This was not an off mainstream movie like Eswar for instance. What I agree as I have earlier noted that an unapologetic depiction of the male lead as a rapist is rare if not the first such instance.

But still , I find the central conceit of the movie, the rape victim wanting to marry and reform the rapist, unpalatable, for the lack of a better word.

Rahul: I have not watched Benam Baadshah and cannot therefore comment on how it was remade into Hindi. As for Arjun Reddy, no, not really and I haven’t watched either that or KS. It was Parthiepan’s interview itself which provoked me to watch and then write about it. Perhaps, we can say the ghosts of AR haunted the interview itself!

“what is this logic – good wife to bad guy vs bad wife to good guy.” – She means the man who is, rightly, willing to look past her rape and still marry her will have to bear the cross all his life. I take that as more an indictment of society than of furthering a patriarchal narrative as two separate people tell her or opine that she has made a mistake by not going ahead with the marriage. It is also a realistic position circa 1980s. Why 1980s, even today I suspect most middle or upper class grooms would run away from such a bride as if she were a time bomb.

What I mean by the line that the film transcends broad identity considerations is it makes us look past our expectations of what a man or a woman should do in these situations and come to accept these unconventional characters for what they are. That can only be achieved by investing time in giving them a backstory. Which many mainstream films neglect to do these days. It’s like set up the dark urchin roaming around with college ATKT gang, setting his sights on a loosu ponnu and then showing how he has this heart of gold that was concealed beneath heaps of sewage all this time. Then how can you, as in the filmmaker, feign surprise that women find this set up offensive.

“It is hard to imagine that he would have been seen as a character and not as an archetype / hero.” – Yes, this was Parthiepan’s first significant performance as actor as well and that definitely made a difference. While Seetha had been around, she was still fresh enough for the audience to accept her without pre-conceived notions induced by type-casting.

“What I agree as I have earlier noted that an unapologetic depiction of the male lead as a rapist is rare if not the first such instance.” – Sure but – and I don’t know if this scene featured in Benaam Badshah – PP features a scene where Seetha openly confronts Parthiepan in front of the rest of the residents of the slum neighbourhood and shames him over his rape. By contrasting it with how he harshly punished a woman who sought to abandon her child born out of wedlock to salvage her upcoming marriage, she puts him on the defensive and weakens his position in the slum as the ‘dada’. I for one thought it was a very interesting discourse on balance of power and how she pushes it in her favour by calling out the bluff on him seeking refuge in his being an orphan to justify all his misdeeds. To me, the difference in the title itself speaks a lot. At no point is the Parthiepan character a badshah in the Tamil original, though he does strut around with helluva swagger.

“But still , I find the central conceit of the movie, the rape victim wanting to marry and reform the rapist, unpalatable, for the lack of a better word.” – Sure but this is exactly what prompted me to watch it. I was curious as to how he could possibly make such a conceit work at all because it sounded extremely risky for his time, for any time per se for that matter. And I had to come away with the conclusion that he did make it work well beyond my expectations. PP is a good demonstration of what is possible in art and that after all is what art exists for. Good art takes risks and then makes the risks work by inventing a logic universe where it fits. I THINK that approach to narration is lost somewhere and that is why our films these days swing from the safe to the wildly outrageous. And the risky propositions that work are usually found to be official or unofficial remakes of foreign films (Badla, for eg).

vinjk: “I’m pretty sure this piece and the film wouldn’t pass the test of #MeToo 2019.” – Possibly so and as an amateur, wannabe writer, I am willing to take that risk as I have no skin in the game. However, to be clear, my write up is really addressed to the defenders of casual, unaccounted misogyny in our cinema. It is a sad commentary on the state of our films if after all these years, the conceit of Mr ATKT vagabond lecturing well educated girls on womanhood is not only tolerated but applauded while Parthiepan has to openly wonder whether he could make a Puthiya Paathai today. Because, notwithstanding the gruesome premise, in terms of sensitivity, PP is miles ahead of these films. The Paathai, verily, is still under construction, just like Indian roads.

“Anil Kapoor’s character is a rapist. But Arjun Reddy , despite being a violent sexual predator is a “troubled genius”.” – Missed this and this line nails it. It is the fact that PP makes no bones about who the male protagonist really is that I appreciated and is what makes the conceit work. After all, in real life, nobody thinks of the Shakti Mills or Nirbhaya rapists as troubled geniuses. So why should cinema play by different rules? If anything, by unabashedly bringing home the reality of rape, PP places our sympathy firmly on the side of the victim, the woman, and that’s as it should be. In a sense, the real narrative of PP is of Seetha fleeing her troubled existence to embrace anonymity as her new identity. In a stable family, she would have received the emotional support she needed after her being raped. But as things stand, the rape probably makes her existence in this household even more unbearable. While the film doesn’t openly say so, this can be reasonably inferred as her motive in taking the unconventional decision that she does.

Varsha : I did think of them and still went ahead with my conclusion as such films remain indie and no longer attain the critical mass that PP could. You’re right in that such films are being made so I should amend it slightly to say we don’t want to listen to these stories anymore.

Madan: I get your point, and I also hope things will improve with the casual moviegoers, but can it be generalised? For instance, Kakkamuttai and Vazhakku Enn 18/9 were well received by the general public, along with high critical acclaim.

Varsha : It is indeed a generalization so there are bound to be exceptions that prove me wrong. I am looking at the overall change in the industry rather than outliers. Parthiepan also alludes to this in the interview when he says C centre is gone.

Madan, The title of your piece piqued my curiousity, because I’d watched Benaam Badshah with appalled horror. From what you write about the Tamil original, all I can say is that much was lost in the translation. The Hindi version was crass, totally misogynistic and had such gems as: Aurat ke izzat par ek baar daag lag jaaye to woh kabhi nahin dhul jaata (I’m praraphrasing so it might not be the exact order of words, but the sentiment is there) to justify the Seeta character going to be the ‘good wife to the bad guy’. In other words, she had agency.

I can agree with your premise that in the original film, there is a sense of this particular woman taking this unconventional step to turn her life around. The Hindi version was a daag that will not be dhulo-fied on both Anil’s and Juhi’s careers.

And I do think, in a country where a judge still orders a rape victim to be married off to her rapist (case happened in 2017, if I remember right), it would be criminal to bring out a film that seems to endorse this.

Anu Warrier : Thanks for the encouragement. I will check back that scene again where Seetha recalls how she got raped and opted out of marriage. But I don’t remember her using the aurat -mard/aan-pen vocabulary there. Only referred to her own self. This is what impressed me about the film and what I was trying to convey when I said it transcends broad identity considerations. It doesn’t say the character is behaving like this because that is what the aan/pen is supposed to do. And by thus focusing on the individuals, it avoids coming across as encouraging marrying off rape victims to the rapist which indeed is a terrible idea as a form of justice.

One of the best Readers Write In article that I have read in this blog. It is not easy to take a stand that seems to go against popular opinion and publically write an article lucidly explaining your opinion. As someone who often tends to do the former and wants to do the latter, I am quite impressed. Congratulations Madan.

Madan, thanks for that link. Yes, the Tamil version is definitely clear about the choice being hers. The Hindi version had that crappy dialogue I mentioned earlier. Not sure that I would watch this movie since I really have no liking for the subject matter, but I have bookmarked the link just in case I do watch someday. But I will keep your excellent arguments in mind when I do watch. (And see if I agree. 🙂 )

Isai: Thanks. Perhaps the point of both this movie as an example and my write up is that PC need not be a minefield if we think through what we are doing. While Parthiepan attributed innocence to his conviction in making the film and it getting accepted, from the way he wrote it, it would appear that he ACKNOWLEDGED the potential for outrage and worked out a way to contextualise the outrage rather than leave it unexplained and invite criticism. In the same way, if I may flatter myself with a parallel to Parthiepan cough, when I wrote this, I acknowledged the potential for outrage and therefore made sure I explained myself well. Which, going by the reactions thus far, I seem to have achieved. As opposed to self censoring and diluting what I wanted to express. Somebody said this about Bill Burr in an article that he will acknowledge it beforehand when he is going to make a joke that has the potential to offend. It is when the creator says, “No, I never intended to offend and it’s all in your head and you should grow a pair” that there’s an issue.

therag: Thanks. And thanks for the heads up about Oldboy.

Anu Warrier: It is indeed baffling why BB chose that direction as that was clearly not Parthiepan’s intent. Such a shame too coming on the heels of the parallel cinema movement, which Parthiepan acknowledged as an influence (at least going by his reference to Akrosh). I did not know of the existence of this Hindi remake but you and Rahul have convinced me I shouldn’t touch it with a barge pole. But the contrast perhaps help make my point as what PP got right that other films did not.

I remember watching Puthiya Pathai when it was released. I came to know about the plot before I saw the film and seeing Parthipan on the film posters did not convince me how good the film was going to be. But it came as a pleasant surprise. It was very well made, the plot engaging, the characterizations pretty good and more importantly you did not feel disgusted at the turn of events in the story. You actually felt for Seetha who was trying to reform a disgusting rowdy into a mellowed hero.

The sad part however was how Parthipan took the film’s success. Puthiya Pathai was a huge hit not just because of how the film was made. A good part of the success was also how Parthipan’s character was lapped up by the young Tamil crowd. There used to whistles and hoots for the crass dialogues that he spoke. And that IMO was the seed to films like Ullae Veliyae. He realized that there was a market for crassness and he cashed in on those.

I was 10(definitely pre-tween) when I watched the movie when it was telecasted on TV i,e I had no idea what the movie was about except probably thought seetha looks good, parthiban is usually funny etc. I was horrified even then about the movie. And as a child Iliked reformist story – that part the movie does well.

” she decides that she would, in her words, rather be a good wife to the bad man who raped her than be a bad wife (burden) to a good man.”
Why does Seetha consider herself to be a bad wife for no fault of hers???? I was never able to get out of this line.

I guess sakala kala vallavan was also similar line – get married to a rapist. you might say but that is masala but how can ignore the prominent plot line of the movie? This was such a strong trope of 80s/90s – get married to the rapist. If you are just following the popular trope of the times how is it revolutionary? Yeah it didnt have the usual beat up the villain and get him married to the victim. but it isnt even one step in any positive direction.

To me the fact she would be a bad wife to a good man is worst line ever. That is what drives the plot of the movie.

Indira was the only movie I could think of which dealt with this well. I was so relieved when he called arvindswamy speaks to an anu haasan and treats the incident as it should be. ( damini – i dont remember much of it so cant comment but it does register the true horror of physical assault aspect).

I had to wait for so long to get movie like Pink.

Glad if all the #metoo makes people stop from making movie like that today.

@sachita : Because she can already hear the sniggering from the groom’s family. She can see a life of ostracization ahead. Of always being told behind her back that she was a kettuponava and her husband is saddled with her. She cannot even expect support from her own family because of how her father is. This is the very reason the devilish father character exists. To make such a decision plausible. Had she had a supportive family, her martyrdom wouldn’t have rung true. The point here is rape pushes her to a point of no return from which she makes this otherwise strange, to say the least, decision. There is no suggestion she is subjecting herself to this to prove her ‘purity’ because rape is always the woman’s fault, which is how other films of the time would have handled it. Which is how, I dare say, many would to this day if there was no outcry from the media or the people.

I agree that marrying the rapist was a common theme in the 80s but perhaps reform starts with acknowledging how unfair that is to the woman and IMO this film achieves that. In that sense, the film distinguished itself from the pack by showing sensitivity that was only there in parallel cinema in Hindi or some of Mahendran or Mani’s films. What COULD have been a much bolder film though would have been to show the Indian panchayat /nattamai justice system marrying off the raped to the rapist and showing us how gruesome that turns out to be. Either that film has never been made or I am not aware of it. It is unfortunate if it is indeed the latter.

I will add here that Seetha’s decision isn’t shown as being reasoned and logical and instead as the withdrawal of one in severe trauma. When her groom says her decision is wrong, she says she doesn’t know if her decision is right or wrong but that she knows she is not in a state to marry him now. She later tells Manorama that most girls in her place would have taken their own life and intelligent ones would have taken the rapist to the police. She admits she did neither.

Madan,
“acknowledging how unfair that is to the woman and IMO this film achieves that.” Based on tamil film logic, the next film that followed on this line would have had a dialogue that would say if you are a true woman you need to reform the rapist like seetha did there. So it obviously could never achieve that.

Thought Parthiban said in the interview to baradwaj that he wasnt aware of this thought process ( /issues) against marrying a rapist. And even then there was widespread criticism against this angle. Today he would start the movie where she shoots him. He isnt defending the movie as far I saw. ( He is quite cool actually).

I am glad things have moved in a better direction.

Also, in your following lines.
” She is not bowled over by a ‘lover’ who relentlessly stalks her nor swayed or enchanted by masculine charm. She is simply placed in extraordinary circumstances which push her to make extraordinary decisions.”
Rape and rapist have always been portrayed mostly negative in that era movies except for sagala kala vallavan. Most films even then didnt show victim marry the rapist because they got swayed/enchanted. Like seetha here, in all those movies, this was the option that they were all pushed to.

” Based on tamil film logic, the next film that followed on this line would have had a dialogue that would say if you are a true woman you need to reform the rapist like seetha did there. So it obviously could never achieve that.” – Ha! Thank God for that. But on a serious note, I don’t think you can hold it against Puthiya Paathai if the films following it did not take the lead from it. As shaviswa said, Parthiban himself stooped to the low of double meaning dialogue in Ulle Velliye. The film has outlived its creator. Probably comparable to Mahesh Bhatt making Arth and then taking a different direction from there than what people perhaps expected.

“Thought Parthiban said in the interview to baradwaj that he wasnt aware of this thought process ( /issues) against marrying a rapist. ” – I am not convinced about that and interpret it as him playing it safe. The film he made shows he did realise he was wading into dangerous waters and made efforts to account for it in his script. If he was actually so blissfully unaware of it, he would have gone down the pombla-maanam route that was in any case seen as acceptable in that era.

“Like seetha here, in all those movies, this was the option that they were all pushed to.” – Ah but Seetha isn’t pushed into it. There’s no nattamai telling her she ought to do this and forcing the rapist to marry her. This is what she seeks out herself. Even if the decision is unconventional to the point of being unpalatable, it is at least better to show her opting for it, so she retains agency, than for people around her pushing her into it. If anything, nobody around her thinks this is a good idea. She doesn’t either; she says that a smart woman would have simply complained to the police. That is the logical thing to do but this is art. I don’t see the problem as long as neither the act of rape nor that of victim marrying the rapist are glorified.

PP wasn’t revolutionary. I am not sure if it was meant to be. It is more like teaching a tiger to go fishing. It works only in that individual movie’s particular universe. If the storyteller made you buy the story, then he is a good story teller and that is that.

Yes, the marrying someone off to the rapist was shown as a valid solution for a pressing problem. The victim will look like “Oh good, As my brother/brother-figure is such a hero, he resolved my rape problem by getting me married to my rapist. How I admire my brother/brother-figure”.

The rapist will look like “Oh shit! I thought I could get away. Now I got my due punishment. DAMN”

The problem of rape isn’t her consent or her trauma or her right to own her body. It is her “dirt”. You can’t use underwear and expect to return to the seller. This was much the same thing. You used it. Now pay for it.

Of course, the hero should first save his sister/sister-figure from a suicide attempt. For in the 80s, that was the logical thing any woman would do once she is raped. In fact, if a woman jumps out of the window of a skyscrapper and becomes dog-food BEFORE the act of rape happens, then there would be a line that goes “Oh she saved herself with death”.

And it wasn’t just the movies. From what I am given to understand the novels and short stories weren’t different. Most importantly, this is how the general public was too. This was evident to me when someone narrates the story to another. Like when I ask someone what the story of PP or Sakalakala Vallavan or Pannakaran(?), the way they narrated the story convinced me that this “Rape is dirt” trope is not something that they questioned at all.

There was this novel with the “he only raped so that no one else would marry her, he is actually quite nice” thing going on. It was a huge hit in my PG hostel. Goodness knows how alone I felt in a world that just did not understand. This was 2002. Not very long back.

PP’s first premise is not exactly redeemable. But the taming the beast part is done well enough. Parthiban’s personality changes very slowly and very clearly. He becomes more and more human. IIRC, He lives in a house that has only one wall. He builds it up step by step to give her privacy when changing her clothes. He himself did not need privacy when he changed his clothes. So the presence of a woman make him live in a way he did not do before. When she dies, the house is blown up and so is his life. So this movie made us see things in a “See, how she can build a man from scratch” theme.

But that theme itself is problematic in its own angle. I can be kind to a dog that bit me. But I will make sure he is in a very dignified kennel for the rest of his life. He maybe redeemed with lots of pure love. But hey! These redeemer complex stories are strictly a one-time watch for me.

Also did you hear the “Hey! He is not a beast. He did not do it for the sex. He did it for the money. So he can’t be seen as all bad” argument? — Head to desk —

Can PP be made now? I do believe that it can be. But it will be subject to more scrutiny than it was then. Big deal. If you write a story and direct it, then you should have the what-do-you-call-it to stand up on a twitter bench and explain yourself. People who want to tell stories of brave women who tame dangerous beasts should have the bravery to take a little twitter-storm. It will last for a week or two.

PP can be made out of a non-rape scenario, no? A man broke into a woman’s house and robbed her and killed her parents, she decides that it is her calling to marry the burglar/killer. Because she is a savior. She saves. She is like that. Admirable and all that. She will teach him that life can be happier when you aren’t a criminal.

“Yes, the marrying someone off to the rapist was shown as a valid solution for a pressing problem.”- I didn’t get that anywhere from the film but I will not deny that the potential for it to be interpreted in that way exists and remains to this day.

“Also did you hear the “Hey! He is not a beast. He did not do it for the sex. He did it for the money. So he can’t be seen as all bad”” – Where was this line in the film, sorry? If anything, it makes him even more of a beast since he was prepared to commit such a violent act just for the money with no consideration for the woman, who, as she herself tells him, had never done any harm to him.

“Ah but Seetha isn’t pushed into it. ” Seetha’s choice would have been the guy she was originally going to marry. Due to the rape, she is left with no choice.
This is going back to bad wife to a good person statement. The statement isnt true but that is the how she has perceived the scenario as.

TBH, if he was even a stalker/ gangster she had fallen for that wont be a force because she fell for him, it was her choice. That isnt the choice seetha had here. I mean hero’s thangachi’s went crying to the hero to get them married to their rapist, a lot of them were making this ‘choice’ then. Panchayat wasnt the driving force in lot of those movies.

Madan, I meant the overall tone of most marry the rapist movies like Sakalakala Vallavan and Panakaran, where the hero saves his sister by ensuring the rapist marries her,

Where was this line in the film, sorry?

Not in the film. It was made in a debate in one of the channels. Sorry I missed mentioning it. There was a program in JJ TV with the formal pattimadram style naduvar. One movie was chosen with a “for team” and “against team”. And this argument was made in so many words there. Around mid 90s.

“I meant the overall tone of most marry the rapist movies like Sakalakala Vallavan and Panakaran, where the hero saves his sister by ensuring the rapist marries her”- OK, fair enough. My argument was only that PP took the same essential material but rose above its problems. That does not prevent misinterpretation of the film but then, people watched Wall Street and got inspired to become like Gordon Gekko, which is the exact opposite of what Oliver Stone wanted.

I want to clarify for the sake of removing any doubt that the write up is not an advocacy of marrying the rapist as a solution or a condonation of misogyny in any form. It is simply an exploration of how ONE film can take an incendiary subject and defend itself if only the writing is not lazy in the way it usually is in Tamil cinema. I have already written a version of this clarification before in this thread but it bears repetition.

“I mean hero’s thangachi’s went crying to the hero to get them married to their rapist, a lot of them were making this ‘choice’ then. ” – But do you not see the difference between that scenario, where the woman is bringing in a white knight in shining armour to save her (i.e. reinforcing patriarchy) and this one where she decides to handle it all by herself? To be clear, the concept isn’t revolutionary indeed but the handling is.

Really enjoyed this Madan! You made some excellent points. ‘Agency. The choices Seetha makes may come across as unrealistic but those are her choices as an independent adult. She is not bowled over by a ‘lover’ who relentlessly stalks her nor swayed or enchanted by masculine charm. She is simply placed in extraordinary circumstances which push her to make extraordinary decisions.’ Nailed it!

I saw this movie a really long time ago and it was hugely troubling and made such a powerful impression that I haven’t really forgotten any of it. I absolutely loathe the concept of a naatamai/savior type marrying off the rape victim to her rapist and yet in this particular movie as you pointed out, it somehow seemed believable that the Seetha character would do this.

She is so strong, dignified and compassionate you can’t help but root for her. I am not really a fan of the belief that women need to make men their charity projects and reform them, yet the gradual transformation of Parthi from a scumbag to a decent human being was strangely moving.

Love that this film worked so hard to explain the thinking behind the characters seemingly batshit crazy notions. More importantly, it is amazing that Parthi had the cojones to make a film like this back then. I also put Rajini’s Engeyo Ketta Kural in this category. It was a film that was way ahead of it’s time and so progressive.

Nowadays it is unfortunate that the same old regressive crap is being churned out with Jo and Nayan doing whatever it is they do in the name of feminism.

Sirai (1984) had a similar concept and PP is a what-if scenario of that movie combined with VandiChakkaram (1980) – both successful movies. Thala BR has written a piece on this where he mentions Rahini’s point.

Engeyo Ketta Kural was a movie that stayed true to the traditional views – however it was presented well. Rajinikanth does not try to bring Ambika back to normal life within the society. She is banished and made to live like an outcast for the mistake she did. However, Rajinikanth gives her the dignity of a decent death. It is a good movie but definitely not something that dared to question old mores in society.

“What COULD have been a much bolder film though would have been to show the Indian panchayat /nattamai justice system marrying off the raped to the rapist and showing us how gruesome that turns out to be. Either that film has never been made or I am not aware of it. It is unfortunate if it is indeed the latter.”

The movie Valli, written by none other than our Superstar Rajinikanth, does it beautifully, no? In fact, that is the major twist in the story. Valli kills her rapist and marries the one who truly loves her, after serving time in jail. This movie released in 1993, just four years after Puthiya Paathai. It was a box office failure, but for all those who lament about a rapist marrying the victim, this film must be a cause for celebration. To me, this film was more of a Puthiya Paathai in this sense and this alone! (not the reformist part, or the plight of orphans. Those are the real good points in Parthiban’s film, IMO).

Also, 10 years later, actor Vivek brings up this injustice in the famous minor kunju comedy in Kaadhal Sadugudu. Although admittedly not as effective as Valli, the fact that Vivek had a reputation for strong social messages through his comedy at that time, prompts the audience to look beyond the laughter it evokes.

There could be more. Needless to say, I have given only what I could remember.

Slightly off-topic. Sorry Madan about the digression. How do you folks view ‘Sila Nerangalil Sila Manithargal’ compared to Puthiya Pathai and other similar movies mentioned in the comments section. Is it really revolutionary for its time or its the usual depiction hiding behind a revolutionary facade.

I don’t remember watching the full movie. But I have read the book seven-eight years back. Then, I felt it was pushing the norms. The book was published in 1970. But now, listening to all the discussions in this blog, I am not so sure. So just wanted to hear your thoughts.

@Rahini David: From what I am given to understand the novels and short stories weren’t different.
Any particular titles that you could recollect? I am not refuting your statement. Just interested to know what kind of books and authors it came from.

On that topic, I was also wondering if anyone has read Thi.Janakiraman’s ‘Amma Vanthal’ and Ambai’s ‘Amma oru kolai seithal’ which, I think, touches upon some of the topics discussed in the recent posts.

To add to my previous comment, Valli is even bolder than the scenario you have mentioned, Madan. Instead of marrying off to the rapist AND THEN showing how gruesome it is, Valli shows the rapist and others how grave the crime is!

@ Varsha IMO Valli still doesn’t go far enough because revenge is not a form of justice available to most women. A woman cannot be expected to murder her rapist in retaliation. Showing how terrible marriage to the rapist is would expose the flaws in the conveniently accepted solution of marrying the rapist. Unless she does marry him at first. I don’t remember that she did but my memory of the film is hazy.

Also the whole idea of playing a romantic song in the background as the act of rape is depicted (Ennulle, and Ilamayenam Poongatru is the same) makes me uncomfortable. Like the Dracula Lucy love scene from the 1979 film but there were know it’s Dracula and fear what he’s doing to Lucy. In these films, playing these beautiful songs to accompany the act introduces undesirable ambivalence IMO. I love both songs but cannot watch the scene.

Seetha makes the same decision like all the female characters did of that time. To get married to the rapist. She ‘decides’ isnt even right. Because without the crime she would have even chosen parthiban. She feels tainted and that is why she chooses him – how is she revolutionary.

I cant/wont settle for that settle as path breaking in this aspect.

If he had shown that seetha continued with original groom and trauma she faced after that, that would be path breaking. Or Again Indira was path breaking. It treated as the way it should be looked at by the girl.

PS: I keep thinking of sila nerangil sila manithargal too, but I havent read the book. So dont know enough of the complexity jayakanthan explored there.

Eswer: Sorry, I did not read the novels. Some of my friends narrated them to me and I don’t recollect the names. But what shocked me was not even the content of the novels themselves, but the attitude of the girls who narrated these stories to me.

“IMO Valli still doesn’t go far enough because revenge is not a form of justice available to most women. A woman cannot be expected to murder her rapist in retaliation.”

One can equate the Valli-rape scenario with the Indian-corruption situation. The point of both movies is not that the solution is murder. The message is that the solution is lawful harsh punishment. They both send a strong message to the viewer about the seriousness of rape/corruption which, IMO, is more effective than marrying a rapist and then punishing. That act(marrying a rapist), in itself, is disgusting to any self-respecting woman, no matter what happens next!

Rahini David : Interesting you say you agree with Seema Goswami’s take on it. Whilst the point is valid as far as women taking responsibility for their choices goes, as a man, I do not accept that men have the right to first promise the moon and then turn around and say I never knew ya. Consent is also subject to the conditions of consent, right? If I accepted to buy a product from a company for a price doesn’t mean I am a customer don’t have the right to take them to task if the product performance is grossly below promise, right? Why would the brave men who battle for men’s rights with the ‘feminazis’ on Twitter even dream of offering caveat emptor as a defence? How is it any different from the patriarchal “girls, stay safe and don’t step out alone after dark ” shtick? For a man’s consent to be valuable at all, there must be a framework that punishes him for not keeping his word. Don’t call it rape if you so wish, I for one don’t get fussy about the exact terminology but it is still horrible if a man makes a promise to marry and then deserts the woman after ‘consensual’ sex. That is deceitful to the core. If you cannot own up to your act, you’re not a man at all. That there are men who do get falsely implicated in rape cases doesn’t change that the problem arises BECAUSE there are, equally, men who seduce and use the woman with no intention of having a relationship with her.

@BR – The Valli seduction is not rape. It was consensual. The boy cheated her and ditched her. Morally wrong, but legally not rape. However, in Tamil movies, sex before marriage is also “kuduthuttaan” and rape is also “keduthuttaan” – so very often consensual sex gets conflated into rape.

@BR
“It’s interesting you call it rape, and now that I think about that VALLI seduction scene, I wonder…
It is consensual. But the woman’s consent is obtained by conning her (i.e. the man makes her think he loves her).
I guess that does qualify as rape, but I wonder how others see it!
I mean, I am asking if the word “rape” can be used here, or is there another word?”

Reminds me of Mayanadhi (Mal movie) dialogue “Sex is not a promise”.

The situation you describe is cheating. But does it classify as rape? I’m not sure because sex is consensual on the condition that he loves her. Hmm…what if there is a change of heart later in their relationship? I think that is the same as “making her think he loves her”.

At the end of the day, people (adults) should behave as adults. Take responsibility for your words and actions.

I have given below separately the most important paragraph in the judgement.

It appears that the intention of the accused as per the testimony of PW 1 was, right from the beginning, not honest and he kept on promising tha the will marry her, till she became pregnant. This kind of consent obtained by the accused cannot be said to be any consent because she was under a misconception of fact that the accused intends to marry her, therefore, she had submitted to sexual intercourse with him. This fact is also admitted by the accused that he had committed sexual intercourse which is apparent from the testimony of PWs 1, 2 and 3 and before the panchayat of elders of the village. It is more than clear that the accused made a false promise that he would marry her. Therefore, the intention of the accused right from the beginning was not bona fide and the poor girl submitted to the lust of the accused, completely being misled by the accused who held out the promise for marriage. This kind of consent taken bythe accused with clear intention not to fulfill the promise and persuading the girl to believe that he is going to marry her and obtained her consent for the sexual intercourse under total misconception, cannot be treated to be a consent. …….19

I for one doesn’t see it as rape. I think rape and marriage should be kept totally separate, at least in cases involving mature adults and without pregnancy. But unfortunately Indian Supreme Court looks at it as: if a man never intended to marry a woman but if he promised marriage and had sex, then it is rape. The problem with such a view is that it is somewhat difficult to ascertain if the man NEVER intended to marry a woman or if he had a change of mind later. Thus, the law restricts the man from walking out of a relationship after having sex but a woman can easily do the same without any consequences.

It is even more diffuclt to ascertain if marriage was PROMISED before sex. The traditional view is that a woman wouldn’t have had sex otherwise and hence her word is taken as the truth. IMO, this is unrealistic and unfair and is yet another example of gender biased judgement/laws. IMO, sex is to be considered as rape only when it is done without the victim’s VALID consent. The validity does get nullified if the consent was obtained under coercion or using physical force or by abusing one’s authority or if the victim was not in a state to give consent. But, just as marriage alone can’t be considered as a lifetime consent pass to the wife’s body, a promise of marriage alone can’t be used to nullify the validity of consent given by the woman. Karan Oberoi’s case leading to the #MenToo movement is an example of the damage that is caused by such a biased law. Another example :

Unfortunately, most of the Indian Intelligentsia are uninterested/unwilling to speak about such issues. Even the coverage given by foreign media is not given by Indian media unless women close to the accused come forward to defend him.

No Madan, conflating consensual sex with rape is terribly wrong. It is not actually similar to that “Well, you were drunk and in room” argument. Not even if the man is saying words like “I love you” and “I will marry only you” etc. with zero sincerity and is doing it only for the OK signal to go ahead with sex on that particular day.

It is deceitful? Is it deplorable? Is it wrong? Well yes. That should NOT be classified as rape. Because it dilutes the meaning of “Rape”. You can’t use the same word for something because you feel it is equally deplorable.

Refusing to acknowledge that any relationship was ever taking place is wrong. Using the word “love” to get what you want is deplorable. But tantamount to rape? Absolutely not.

It is rape if,

1) She was refusing clearly and he uses physical force.
2) She was drugged.
3) She was mentally ill.
4) She was physically trapped and consents out of fear.
4) She was not old enough to give consent and he knew her age. It is rape even if she was literally begging for it.

Refusing to acknowledge that any relationship was ever taking place actually takes place as this attitude of equating romantic break ups with rapes. Men should be permitted to break up with a GF if things are not working out. It is clearly connected to the “used goods” concept.

Valli says it is even ok to kill a man over disappointed love over this.

@”That there are men who do get falsely implicated in rape cases doesn’t change that the problem arises BECAUSE there are, equally, men who seduce and use the woman with no intention of having a relationship with her.”

This looks as if sex is gratifying only for men and women have it only so as to get a man to provide for her. And that women don’t use men and desert them when they find a better provider.

“If I accepted to buy a product from a company for a price doesn’t mean I am a customer don’t have the right to take them to task if the product performance is grossly below promise, right? ”

You have given something (money in this case) and hence inherit a right to demand performance. But, in case of sex, there is no actual give and take unless you subscribe to the provider view that I mentioned above.

” If you cannot own up to your act, you’re not a man at all.”

What about women? Does this principle apply to them or do they get a free pass?

IMHO, expecting higher standards from men means assuming that men are inherently superior species.

Rahini David : I am certainly not conflating rape and break up after intercourse. But what then is a breakup? It’s a breakup when the partners have had a conversation and one partner has made it clear he/she cannot proceed with the relationship. Is there a difference to my mind between that and the Valli /Tamil movie situation where the whereabouts of the boy cannot be ascertained after the act? Avowedly yes. The latter is simply not acceptable and my reasoning is not unlike that given in the judgment quoted by Varsha. Consent obtained under deceit is no consent at all. I am not talking about the couple breaking up before marriage and the girl then accusing the boy of cheating her. In that scenario the boy has shown bona-fide intention of going through with the promise. But if that intention flies out of the window with no action on the part of the girl to induce such a change of mind and purely because the boy had no intention ever of keeping his promise, it tantamounts to rape IMO. I don’t see the difference between a stranger coercing sex out of you and a guy who pretends to be stranger the day after sex.

@Isai : But men cannot be impregnated. So there will always be a dual standard. Historically this standard came down against women and these days it swings against men. There will be a rebalancing again but let’s get to what you said in the first paragraph.

You are talking about driving gratification from sex. If it was only about that, there would be no issue. No, let’s look deeper into why obtaining consent under the promise of marriage even happens. It is because of the obsession with virginity. Why do Indian men think they are entitled to virgin women and any woman who has has sex is a kettuponava? I am not saying all Indian men think this way but many do and this expectation continues to inform the institution of marriage. If men can get adult and grow up, both partners in the act could have casual sex with no expectation of anything more. In such a scenario, even sex in a potentially long term relationship that happened to break will not be construed as rape. But the obsession with virginity puts an impossible burden on women and any man who deceives a woman into sex in such an environment has committed a wanton crime in my eyes, period.

Varsha, thanks for sharing the judgement. I think the judgement is correct, considering the facts of the case. The key facts IMO are that, there was a public promise of marriage by the accused in front of their families BEFORE sex, the victim was a student (not financially independent and hence bound to parental pressure/social norms regarding marriage alliance) and the fact that it had happened only once, makes me believe that it was an hurried instinctive/impulsive decision by the girl based on fears like what if I refuse and he calls off the alliance etc. Hence, I think this decision was correct mainly because by inviting the girl to his house and then asking for sex under such circumstances, the man put undue pressure on her and didn’t give her sufficient time to take an informed decision.

But the scenario of an urban independent couple getting into a physical relationship where the woman ASSUMED that this is going to lead to a marriage or where there is no evidence to show a formal/public acknowledgement of intent to marry, sex should not be treated as rape.

A part of my mind asks me if I would be okay if this woman became unhappy with the sex and had decided to call off the alliance. When the answer is yes, why should a man be deprived of the same right? But, as someone who has seen how marriages are solemnised in such societies, I feel the circumstances of this case should be considered for arriving at this judgement.

Rahini: As Madan says, the Valli movie scenario and the judgement case I have quoted are different from the romantic breakups that you are talking about. I may just be repeating what Madan has said, but even then I think this bears repetition. There are actually two, similar-on-the-surface, but very different scenarios here. The nature of the relationship is a very important consideration here. If a couple is in a long-term relationship involving sex, with or without the mutual understanding of an eventual marriage, and they break up over differences and the girl cries foul play, then it should not amount to rape. But the cases where sex on false promise of marriage are equated to rape are mostly(not all, surely, though the situation gets complicated when the relationship is long-term) one-day affairs with the guy eloping very soon after sex. I think it is only unfair on the girl to not call it rape in that case. Also, in the judgement case, the prosecution was never denying that a relationship existed. But, of course, proving the nature of a relationship in a court of law can, more often than not, get mighty complicated. But then, when was justice ever an easy affair?

Madan, Consent obtained under deceit is no consent at all. But that is deception. Not rape.

I am not saying that people who conceal their prior relationships or other current relationships or many other aspects of their life should go scot-free. Only that they should be charged with deception. Not rape.

I am not downplaying the emotional trauma or even the social implication to the said woman. Only that it is not rape.

We may think that deception does not sound strong enough considering the offence and its implication. But that thought is wrong. Emotional deception is extremely traumatic and people who undergo this should be treated with the sensitivity they deserve and due justice should be served too. But not under the bracket of rape.

If I met a woman who was threatened and raped. And met another woman who was cheated into a sexual relationship, I’d not for a moment decide that the first woman’s trauma matters and the second woman’s trauma does not matter. The second woman should also sue the perpetrator. No question about it. But not rape.

Now let us say a woman goes to a lawyer and explains what happened and the lawyer says she can sue for rape and not for deception? Can that happen? I don’t know. But if a woman can’t sue the man for the right offence, she will have to sue under the wrong section. That is terrible.

I have no clue what the law is on this differentiation. But the differentiation is important. Words and labels do matter a lot. Pushing different offences under the same bracket definitely dilutes the meaning. And that is never good.

Rahini : But rape under threat is only one type of rape. How about a girl’s drink being spiked and her being raped without her being aware of it? I agree that it would still not be exactly like the marriage hoax scenario but it would be closer. The woman would not have suffered the trauma of having tried to forestall the act and still endure rape but she would have still suffered sex that she did not consent to. The question comes down to consent and where we differ is in how we see fraudulently obtained consent. But I understand your motivation in pushing back because we already have this video where a girl is shown claiming she was raped because she saw her father assaulting her mother and other such incidents which brought her no harm directly and your point is well taken that we should not dilute the essence of the word such that it stops being taken seriously.

@Madan, the obsession with virginity was not restricted to Indian men alone. Since it would take a lot of space to elaborate on it, I will share some articles on how virginity was/is perceived by other societies.

I believe it goes back to the times of hunter-gatherer, when the male started acting as a provider. Then, the female had an advantage in that she would definitely know that her child is actually hers. Hence, men demanded fidelity, so that they don’t get ‘duped’ into providing for a child that is not actually theirs (Even today, the word adultery is closely related to adulteration.) Since women didn’t have this problem, they didn’t demand the same exacting standards and instead many women were willing to marry the same man, say a king, provided he was able to provide for all of them. As this society evolved, it started following the hereditary tribal system. Here, since the eldest son was considered the heir, a virgin bride was demanded for the heads of tribes so that there was no issue related to paternity. Also, in small close tribes, when a woman has sex with someone else before marriage, it was considered that she is more likely to have sex with the same person after marriage. Hence, the demand for female virginity strengthened. I think this is what evolved into the Catholic notion that sex is only for procreation purpose.

I believe that as more women become financially independent, with increase in literacy and employment levels, the tendency to see man as a provider would decrease and so would the obsession with virginity.

Rahini: From what I could piece together through a google search, there does seem to be a separate name for it, though not something as plain as deception. It is called sex by deception or rape by deception. As far as I personally am concerned, whatever be the technical/legal name for it, the punishment should be no different from or more severe than that of rape, since the emotional trauma and social implication are the same, if not more. Just to show how heinous such a crime can go, and how people can escape from law if this sex by deception is not given due attention, consider the two cases recorded in California in the following Wikipedia link:

If diluting the meaning is the issue, by all means, give different names, but not at the cost of reducing the punishment. As far as I am aware, deception is a lesser offense than rape, but sex by deception is no lesser a crime than rape.

Isai: “But the scenario of an urban independent couple getting into a physical relationship where the woman ASSUMED that this is going to lead to a marriage or where there is no evidence to show a formal/public acknowledgement of intent to marry, sex should not be treated as rape.”

I agree with you there as I have already stated in a previous comment, except that the acknowledgement need not necessarily be formal or public. It could even be between the couple, with the guy having promised marriage to the girl. Now, whether such a private acknowledgement can be proven through evidence in a court of law is indeed problematic, but at least, when defining rape, I think this clause should be included.

Isai : I am not singling out India. I am specifying Indian men as my first hand experience is limited to India. I agree that other countries that are more advanced today have also been through this at some point. And yes, financial independence should gradually reduce and eventually obliterate the obsession with virginity. But it’s a long way for the majority. Your and my experience centred around urban middle class seems far removed from rural India or the urban poor.

Regarding Valli, I see it more as a deception rather than rape. I agree with Rahini David’s comment on the definition of rape. Especially the point Words and labels do matter a lot. I remember listening somewhere how a group, I think it’s the Marxists of Tamil Nadu, was particular about using the right Tamil word for rape. They thought the usual ‘கற்பழிப்பு’ (Karpazhippu – literally means virginity destroyed) is a bad choice as the emphasis is on the virginity and came up with வல்லுறவு/வன்புணர்வு/வன்கலவி (valluravu/vanpunarvu/vankalavi) or something similar where the emphasis is on வன் meaning force.

Valli is deceived but the intercourse happened with her consent which I think is a key factor. By consenting one is actively taking part in it. It is that consent and non-coercion that is the key irrespective of whether it is based on a future or past promise. For example, would it be still a rape if a man marries and just disappears after consummation? But it is still a rape if a married man forces himself on his wife but continues to honour a past promise i.e the contract of marriage.

Eswar: “For example, would it be still a rape if a man marries and just disappears after consummation?”
There is a marked difference between this and sex by deception, provided the marriage is registered and/or public. The social implication, especially in a country like India, is less pronounced if the marriage precedes sex. The society will support the girl more in this case. And, there is a very strong legal stand to get a divorce. In sex by deception, proving that a relationship exists, especially in one-day affairs, itself can be hard, not to mention proving that the guy promised to marry before the girl consented to sex.

Varsha: I see your point. If we exclude this social implication, would sex-by-deception still equate to rape? For instance, in an evolved society, where sex and virginity has no special meaning, sex-by-deception would not be a thing. Even in that society, rape would be a crime as today. Because rape is not about losing virginity and social support but the fundamental violation of one’s right on their body. An evolved society, like mentioned above, might be more supportive of rape victims. But that support, in anyway, would not change what the individual has gone through.

Eswar: I think, even removing the social implication does not make sex by deception any different from a rape. The fundamental violation of one’s right on their body is still very much present in sex by deception too. The only difference is that the victim does not feel she has been violated until the deception holds. Once the truth is revealed, all hell breaks lose in the victim’s mind, just as in rape. In this sense, it is similar to drugged rape. As long as the victim does not regain consciousness, all is fine, at least for the victim. But once she regains consciousness, which she definitely will, unless the rape leads to death/murder or loss of memory, she will definitely feel violated. So is the case with sex by deception. The deception is the mental “drug” that the perpetrator gives to the victim. Instead of tablets or drugs, here it is words. Trust also plays a part in both cases, followed by guilt in addition to the feeling of being violated. If sex by deception is not rape(or worse), drugged sex is also not so. But we have no problem categorizing that as rape. A dis-evolved society only makes the situation even worse. Even in the case of the married man absconding after consummation, in a society where marriage is not given much importance, it is indeed sex by deception. All said, it all finally boils down to the mindset of the victim and the people around her. Nevertheless, I think we can safely assume some things as a given when discussing such sensitive issues, lest these crimes get glossed over.

A lot has been discussed on this thread about sexual assault, and in the heat of the debate, I have talked so much on the side of women and the laws supporting us that I feel a clarification is in order, even if only for my own satisfaction. To use a done-to-death quote from Spiderman, with great power, comes great responsibility. All these issues, all over the globe irrespective of culture, must surely have started with the misuse of power(physical strength) by some irresponsible and unscrupulous men. This is the simplest and most physically violent form of rape, which can be called hard rape(no pun intended 🙂 ), as opposed to drugged rape or sex by deception(soft rape, if you will). This, over a period of many years, has inevitably led to the empowerment of women through laws of the land. If the recent judgements are any indication, this empowerment is still growing, with marital rape, by far the most complicated form of the offense getting increasing attention. And already, one hears of misuse in the opposite direction, with unscrupulous women trapping innocent men using these very laws empowering them. As vinjk said, the situation today warrants responsible behaviour from both genders. On the contrary, we are discovering and naming newer and worse variations of a horrible crime. The relationship between a man and a woman can be so beautiful and elegant that it pains to see it smeared with something as ugly and deplorable as the misuse of both sex and the laws against such misuse. If left unchecked, we may not be able to redeem ourselves from some of the most evil deeds that only a human mind can think of!

@Easwar: Amma oru kolai seidhaal by Ambai, is about how a mother-daughter relationship changes when the girl starts menstruating: Her mother who was a ‘Goddess’ to her becomes a ‘demon’, because she says “enna ezhavukkudee unakku avasaram, idhu vera oru baaram”. This, coming in the heals of the child longing for her mother’s emotional support in such a time. It is a wonderful, sensitive story and the writing is magical. But, it does not have anything to with rape 🙂

Madhu: 🙂. I should have been clearer when I said touches upon some of the topics discussed in the recent posts.. I meant the topics and comments in other posts as well. Also when I mentioned ‘Amma oru Kolai seithal’ I should have specified that I meant the collection edited by Anar, titled under the same name. This particular collection had a number of moving, memorable stories, including ‘Amma oru kolai seithal’, about sex, sexuality and gender imbalance. And yes, I agree. That particular story was very moving.

‘Engeyo Ketta Kural was a movie that stayed true to the traditional views – however it was presented well. Rajinikanth does not try to bring Ambika back to normal life within the society. She is banished and made to live like an outcast for the mistake she did. However, Rajinikanth gives her the dignity of a decent death. It is a good movie but definitely not something that dared to question old mores in society.’

Shaviswa: The movie did question traditional mores IMO. It made the case that Ambika’s plight was unfair and a character says that women pay a heavier price for milder transgressions while men get away with just about anything. (She admits that while she did not betray her husband physically she did so mentally and has opted to punish herself for it. The film makes it clear that this social conditioning favors men while punishing women unnecessarily) As for Rajinikanth he could not really do anything about her situation can he? Her father is the headman and hates her for tarnishing the family honour. But Rajini handles his wife’s rejecting of him and elopement with a grace that is rare not just then but even now. It’s not like he lives for revenge which would have been the traditional approach and the fact that he keeps his word to her despite knowing that he and his family will be ostracized for the same makes him one of the classiest characters of all time.

Madan regarding your thoughts on men who promise marriage in order to have sex being guilty of rape , I couldn’t disagree with you more. On that note, Rahini I couldn’t agree with you more. I wrote about this sometime back and am sharing the link below:

I opined that Engeyo Ketta Kural did not really question old social mores is precisely because of what you have mentioned.

Ambika runs away from home and then feels guilty, returns home. She returns home only having sinned mentally and not physically. (Why was this needed? Because the director chickened out of saying that she returned after a few days despite having an affair with someone else. The heroine has to be pure.)

Rajinikanth promises her a decent last rites…..and sticks to his promise. So the hero – despite being wronged by his first wife – stays true to his character.

“Kudumba maanam” is more important than the life of a daughter. Did they even try to understand why she may have wanted to run away from the life they chose for her?

Ambika was forced into a marriage with Rajinikanth – and there is nothing in the movie that says what they did with her was wrong.

The only change in the film was like what you said – the way Rajinikanth handles her pre and post her running away.

Madan: Not sure how I missed this earlier but, this is a fantastic piece which opens newer gateways for us to “enter into” this film. I saw Benaam Baadshah as a kid and was quite repulsed by it. Saw the original much later (when it became available with subs) and while I can’t say I liked it, it was clear that the original was much better mostly due to Parthiban’s performance but also because it remained true to milieu in ways how Benaam Baadshah didn’t. Also Parthiban is simply a more persuasive storyteller. But I have never thought of the film this way till I read your piece. Thank you for writing this and thanks to BR as well for posting it.